dbp

Nice work! Cool edit style and lots of nice looking shots in there. I just returned from Kauai with a ton of GH2 footage so I'm into watching people's vacation videos right now, haha. Solid stuff!

Great write up! It really gives a crash course on the fundamentals of imagery. The examples are really good too, compared to similar types of articles I've read. There's two that I would throw into the hat. The first is just an overview on frame rate and the second is motion cadence in general. This a controversial one and I'm still not sure how I feel about it... but there are people who feel like all cameras render motion differently, even when the frame rates are matched. I feel this way too, even though I'm not sure if it's in my head or not. I've heard some people claiming that Sony cameras, at least the older models, had a bit of an ugly cadence. Where as something like the DVX100/HVX200 had a pleasing cadence. I find the blackmagic line stands out as having good motion cadence. I know some people claim that intra-frame codecs display motion in a more pleasing way, where as Long-GOP (ie: AVCHD) stuff is a little off. I think if it is variable, it's a subtle one. Nonetheless, an important point of discussion. The second is a huge point as far as I'm concerned, and that's color science. Not in terms of bitrate, 4:2:0 etc... but rather how the sensor interprets and renders color and tones. The "mojo" if you will. I think it's a huge reason why the early Canon DSLRs were so popular and remained popular despite being surpassed from a technical standpoint. The Panasonic line was often chosen over cameras like the sharper and larger sensor EX1 for this reason. The panasonic mojo. I have the GH2 and a lot of people (me included) were often not pleased with the green/yellow tint. Cameras like the C100/C300 having a lot of success despite being overpriced for what they deliver on the spec sheet. A pleasing look out of camera, particularly nice skin tones, goes a long way. I think this one is more subjective and tougher to compare than something like resolution. But damned if it's not insanely important in my opinion. So those are my two.

I thought the C100/C300 were really strange models when I first heard about them. It was hard to understand why anyone would pay for what you got on paper. I've been shooting with C100s for one of my clients, and I'm *really* surprised with how much I've taken to the camera. I love the ergonomics. It's still quite light and compact but has all the easily accessible buttons and features. The image straight out of the camera is really good. Hard to screw up, and that counts for a lot. It's only 1080p, but it's a very sharp and clean 1080p so we're talking a very different league than the mushy DSLRs of old. I've been using my trusty GH2 for years and honestly, if I could afford it I'd switch to a C100 in a heartbeat. I get tired of wrestling with the color and usability of the GH2. It shoots really nice video a lot of the time, particularly of landscapes and objects. People.... eh. Plenty of times I've been less than thrilled. I still prefer the color science and skintones of my old HMC150, despite it being much crappier looking in every other way. I've learned my lesson on choosing cameras based on specs. Color science and mojo count for a lot. I recently watched some BMPCC videos for the first time in a while and I forgot how utterly gorgeous that camera can look. Especially with people. I would've thought Shane was an idiot not too long ago but I totally see where he is coming from now. The ancient 5D might have a ton of technical flaws but it really does make people look nice, and that counts for ALOT. It's a strange time though and it's hard to feel comfortable pulling the trigger on a 1080p camera with 4K looming. 60p is hugely important to me so it's also hard to get a 4K camera that shoots 4K @ 60p. Pickings are slim for that right now. Really disappointed that the GH4 can't do it.

It's not just talent and ability, but professionalism that goes a long way to building and maintaining business relationships. Being on time, being polite, calm under pressure, attentive to deadlines are all things you won't be able to buy with the latest lens or steadycam. I'm sure there are talented folks who never make it due to their attitude and way of conducting business.

Definitely no obnoxious judder that I can see. Has a nice motion cadence actually. Also plays perfectly smooth on my comp. I7 2600k, 16gb ram, GTX570 vid card Played in VLC player.

Definitely for documentaries. Weddings too, and other live events. Though I've generally been happy with the GH2 low light performance so I think I'll be fine with the GH4.

Lowlight test has hit the web:

Wow, great looking stuff! I downloaded the 4K file off of vimeo. I only have a 1080p monitor and the detail is insane. Unlike anything I've ever seen from a 1080p camera. I can't image how good it looks on a proper 4K display. I'm more and more excited for this camera. Image quality aside, it's so nice to have the versatility. 4K, UHD, 1080p intra, PAL/NTSC, 96fps... even having plain old AVCHD is great for long events when the extra IQ isn't warranted. I'm curious to see the low light performance and how it compares to the GH2 and GH3.

Blackmagic line immediately jumps to mind as the cheapest option. You are right in that dynamic range will be your friend in that scenario. Canon C100 maybe? A bit out of your range, but good dynamic range/overall image and very friendly to long recording times. I think some of the newer Nikon DSLRs (5300, 7100) also have pretty decent dynamic range as well.

Very excited for the final report. This camera has me the most pumped I've been for a new camera in a long time. Definitely a worthy successor to the GH2. That's too bad about 96fps mode, as I shoot a lot of slow mo. 60fps is usually fine though. In fact, my only gripe with this camera is that they couldn't do 60p at UHD/4K, but I realize that's asking a lot at this stage.

The C300 was such an interesting product. I remember the big announcement for it and the Red Scarlet. On paper, the Scarlet absolutely destroyed it and I remember the reactions online were pretty negative toward Canon. I certainly wondered what the hell they were thinking and who they planned to sell it to. Fast forward to now and we all know how successful it' been. It's definitely easy to forget that specs are only part of the equation. Versatility, reliability and ease of use are huge in production environments with fast turn around times.

Yeah, Youtube and Vimeo compression rates are pretty low so it's best to feed it as high quality a source as you, your internet and your time frame can muster. I try to do 15-20mbps h.264 for 720p videos, and 30+mbps h.264 for 1080p videos. I've experimented with DNXHD sources which look even better but those can get up to 10gb or more. So it's all about trade offs. I can say that IMO, the presets in Premiere are way too low. 10mbps minimum is what I would want.

It's impossible to solidly define, or else discussions would've ceased 10,000 threads ago! Personally, I think people simply mean production value when they say film look. They want their stuff to look like the quality they see on TV or in the theatre. There are so many variables that go into making that look. Camera, lighting, framing, blocking, set design, color grading, costumes... a lot of talented folks in different departments firing on all cylinders. While it's getting easier to hit the high end on some of them (camera), it's not so easy to define and reach those same levels with some of the other variables. I think people continually chase it with simple solutions like 24p, shallow DOF, and now 2.4:1 framing and weird muted surreal color grades. Things that play a part but don't address the core of why high end cinema is what it is. And I don't just mean high end in terms of budget, but artistic talent. I do find that there's this weird valley now with online short films. They used to scream amateur with all facets. Nowadays so many are looking better and better, closing the gap between high end and low end... but the story and/or acting is still bad. Especially the acting. People make fun of Michael Bay movies, but the acting in those is honestly phenomenal compared to the average film we see posted on these types of forums. It's always jarring to see such good looking stuff, and then the suspension of disbelief is instantly shattered with the first line out of someones mouth. Hard to find good or even decent actors though. It really is a hell of a talent.

I find it funny that pixel peepers get bashed so routinely. Even high level DOPs have done extensive tests with different cameras before using them for a project. A big part of getting the most out of your gear is testing it and getting familiar with the strengths and weaknesses. You could argue that it's even more important to do this with the low end stuff since it's going to be way less forgiving than an Epic/Alexa. That said, I do think that most will see bigger jumps in the quality of their work by improving their composition/lighting/editing rather than switching camera systems.

Hah, it'd be wonderful is someone could actually break it down that simply. There's been pages and pages of discussion on many a forum about that very thing. I think it's subjective, tough to articulate, and tough to isolate variables. IE: The camera itself vs the lighting, framing, blocking etc etc... Always fun to try and decipher though.

I always wondered this too. Suppose you shoot stuff, it's well exposed and looks clean... and then you converted it to Pro Res / DNXHD or whatever, how would anyone know that it came from an AVCHD camera? I edited a provincial election ad a few years back and the footage was some HDV handy cam footage. No one batted an eye. They might *say* they require XYZ, but if you hide it and don't say anything, would they even know the difference?

It depends. There's objective and then there's objective. Every camera has pros and cons, plusses and minuses. Different people will have different preferences towards certain things. However, omitting facts due to emotional bias is taking it too far. IE: Camera A has a noisier image than camera B and everyone and their mother sees it. Yet the reviewer tries to claim otherwise. That's not opinion or subjectivity. That's an outright lie. On the other hand, something like valuing XLR inputs over longer battery life is entirely subjective. It's when there are quantifiable measurements and the reviewers try to spin them... that's when I have issues.

This was quite the hot topic when it came out. A lot of positive press for the GH2 came about because of this test. The DOP who did the Red stuff was chastised pretty badly too if I recall.

I'm surprised when I hear this too. I've cut hour long Red projects with multiple layers. I loaded the BMC4k files in Adobe and they play surprisingly smoothly, even at full res with Speedgrade effects. I have an i7 2600k (non-OC) with 16gb RAM and a GTX570. Nothing fancy, it's almost two years old now. Hard Drive speed is definitely becoming the major bottleneck, but I get by okay with a WD Cavier black 7200rpm drive. More space and HD speed would definitely be a huge asset though.

Welcome to the internet, unfortunately. I follow a wide variety of forums on different subjects I'm into and while they all *say* they encourage free speech..... well.... I understand deleting certain things. Outright insults. Hate speech. Even if the discussion of the thread goes wildly off topic...perhaps move it to a new thread. But way too often, stuff that serves as a healthy debate is deleted if it goes against the hive mind of that particular forum. People are insecure and can't stand up to scrutiny. This forum did it just recently. The guy who posted the fake test with the GH3/BMPCC, where both samples were really the GH3? It spawned a heated discussion, but there was no justifiable reason to remove it entirely, beyond soothing ego wounds. None.

I worked at a small production company in Canada for 3 years. I got some great experience, as I got to be the main editor, shooter, motion graphics artist. We even did a lot of live streaming. So I got to wear many hats rather than having to start from the bottom logging footage at a larger company. The downside was that there wasn't much of a market for video in that city. There was 2 or 3 production companies in town and that's it. I moved to Vancouver, and my old employer ended up folding a few months later. Had I stuck around, I would've been really hard up for work. In Vancouver, I decided to tackle the freelance world. There's way, way more going on here (not surprising) but it's been challenging establishing myself. I get most of my gigs responding to craigslist ads. They are hit or miss, some are bottom feeders looking for cheap rates... others are from legit production companies looking for sub contractors. My most steady client is actually one that I met through doing volunteer work. I am not the most business savvy, so I think freelancing success is based as much on your business acumen and willingness to hustle for work rather than your skill. There is a lot of competition, but also a lot of clients and work. I don't have any involvement in the film industry, but working with a few people who do, it can be pretty lucrative. Freelancing is basically exchanging security and, currently at least, higher pay for more freedom. It's stressful, but working from home and having more creative control is something I'm willing to fight for. I think it really comes down to the individual and what they value more. I will say this... IMO, unless you have a steady stream of high end clients, I think it's a mistake for people to invest in expensive gear in this day and age. The low end, the GH2s, BMPCC, etc etc... can produce really great stuff if you know what you're doing. Clients do not care or notice quality nearly to the degree that we do here. I still use an HMC150 for a lot of gigs and people are thrilled with the results. Of course, at the high end they have different expectations, and you can probably pay off a Red pretty quick.

  Not only is it history repeating itself, but I feel the difference between SD to HD is much greater to the average joe than HD to 4K/UHD will be. I haven't seen 4k content on a TV, so I could be wrong, but that's my gut instinct for now.

Back when DSLRs hit the streets, the pro camera crowd were moaning about ergonomics and usability over image quality.   I find it funny how the GH3 crowd is taking that stance now against the RAW cameras. The pendulum is swinging back the other way?   I enjoyed the test. It's a happy medium between charts and random scenes. Charts are very objective, but they don't say a whole lot about the "look" of a camera, which is what my clients care about. They've never once refused payment because my camera only resolved 800 lines instead of the competing camera's 850. Not trying to disparage technical tests. I'm very interested in them, but they have their limitations.    Just as bad is people showing random videos and declaring a camera superior because of it. That wedding video looks great, but it's also a pretty easy softball for a camera to record. The setting is interesting, and the lighting/contrast looks pretty easy. I suspect most cameras would look pretty good there.   I have an HMC150. Shot at magic hour, I bet it would beat out the BMPCC in unfavorable conditions. It's nice to see how cameras compare shooting the same scene. Particularly if there's a scene that's challenging. We've gotten to the point where most cameras look nice in an easy setting. Its the hard ones that truly separate them. 

This may be a dumb question but do you have to use the speedbooster as a speedbooster? Can you also use it as a regular old mount? IE: Can I use the lens as an 18-35 f1.8 on a GH2 / BMPCC ?

Best looking test footage for the GH3 that I've seen yet. Renewed my faith in the lil' beast. The color pallette seems more pleasing than the GH2, which was always it's Achilles heel imo. Highlights look kinda iffy. Not sure about this extended dynamic range talk. I guess we'll have to see a proper objective comparison with the GH2.